Gender and sexuality: an introduction to the special issue.

SEXUALITY AND GENDER: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

Gender has been conceptualized by various authors as "the socially constructed roles associated with each sex" (Rosenblum & Travis, 2003, p. 23), as "what culture makes out of the `raw material' of biological sex" (Crawford & Unger, 2000, p. 21), and as "nonphysiological aspects of being female or male--the cultural expectations for femininity and masculinity" (Lips, 2001, p. 4). To clarify their use of the term gender, many authors contrast it with the term sex. For example, Rosenblum and Travis (2003) described sex as referring "to females and males--that is, to chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and physiological differences" and described gender as referring to "the culturally and historically specific acting out of `masculinity' and `femininity'" (p. 23). (1)

The articles in this issue reflect the cultural context of gender and sexuality. For example, Tolman, Striepe, and Harmon describe their endeavor into developing a model of sexual health for adolescent girls. Consistent with the emphasis on culture in the above definitions of gender, their model includes not only variables at the level of the individual girl (e.g., does she have knowledge about sexual health, is she aware of her own values) but also at three levels of contextual variables: variables at the personal relationship level (e.g., is she able to communicate with her partner about sexuality), the social relationships level (e.g., does she get social and emotional support from her family and peers), and the cultural level (e.g., does she have access to comprehensive sex education). The collection of articles in this special issue address gender and sexuality at all these levels.

The authors of these articles used diverse methods to study gender and sexuality, including experiments, surveys, interviews, ethnographies, literature reviews, and their own self-reports of the theory-development process. Each of these methods has its own strengths and limitations. Experimental methods are valuable for showing causation, and they allow careful control of potentially confounding variables. This control can sometimes be problematic for studying gender, however, because "although laboratory studies isolate variables from the contaminating influence of real-life social processes, gender is played out in exactly those real-life processes" (Crawford & Unger, 2000, p. 19). The same can be said for sexuality. Conversely, more naturalistic methods allow researchers to observe gender and sexuality operating in context, but they do not allow for control of potentially confounding variables. Thus, both experimental and naturalistic methods have something to offer. Used together, these methods complement each other and provide a richer understanding of sexuality and gender.

THE SEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD

Several themes emerged repeatedly across these articles. One such theme was the sexual double standard: differential sexual standards for women and men, with harsher, more restrictive standards almost always applied to women. Crawford and Popp review and critique the literature on the sexual double standard, or more precisely, the literature on sexual double standards, given that these standards vary among subcultures and among individuals within a subculture. Crawford and Popp document numerous variations in what behaviors are considered acceptable or unacceptable for women, girls, men, and boys, and in what contexts these behaviors are considered appropriate or not for each group.

Alexander and Fisher investigated the sexual double standard using a laboratory study. In their ingenious study, they contrasted participants' self-reports of their sexual behavior in three experimental conditions: a bogus pipeline condition, an anonymous condition, and an exposure threat condition. In the bogus pipeline condition, where participants were attached to a "polygraph" that could allegedly detect deception, young women's and men's self-reports of masturbation and exposure to erotica were similar. In the exposure threat condition, however, where participants thought their answers might be seen by a peer, women's reports were more consistent with the sexual double standard. These results suggest that sexual double standards are likely to be self-perpetuating by shaping and constraining people's self-presentations, thereby influencing not only what they report to researchers but also what they convey to their peers. If most people portray their sexual behavior as conforming to a double standard, then behavior inconsistent with this double standard will appear deviant.

Nevertheless, sexual standards can and do change. Haavio-Mannila and Kontula conducted an impressive study documenting changes in women's and men's sexual standards across time (comparing Finnish data from 1971, 1992, and 1999) and across cultures (comparing data from Finland, Estonia, and St. Petersburg). Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, the sexual revolution brought greater gender equality and access to sexual information and sexual health services to Finland, but not to Estonia or St. Petersburg. Coinciding with this sexual revolution, fewer people endorsed sexual double standards in Finland in the 1990s, compared with Finland in the 1970s, Estonia in 2000, and St. Petersburg in 1996. Haavio-Mannila and Kontula also found that more egalitarian sexual attitudes were related to greater sexual satisfaction.

THE REPRODUCTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF GENDER

Several of the articles in this issue illustrate how gender is reproduced and enforced among young people. Kornreich, Hearn, Rodriguez, and O'Sullivan found intriguing evidence that older siblings influenced the sexual socialization of early adolescent girls. In their literature review, Crawford and Popp show how the sexual double standard is conveyed and enforced by adolescents, such as when middle school boys proudly portray themselves as sexually active while disparaging sexually active girls. In Alexander and Fisher's study, comparisons of the bogus pipeline and exposure threat conditions suggest that young adults are likely to present themselves as behaving consistently with gender stereotypes, even if those presentations are deceptive.

Gendered performances are not limited to young people, however. In her fascinating ethnographic study of strip club regulars, Frank explored one way in which men perform gender and heterosexuality. In her paper, she describes how customers publicly displayed their desire for women, giving them a way to communicate and to secure their gender identity and heterosexuality.

GENDER AND POWER

Several of these articles deal with gender and power. In many ways, gender is a system of power in which women have less power than do men, but it would be overly simplistic to conceptualize men as powerful and women as powerless (Lips, 2001). Many of these articles address the complex interactions of gender, sexuality, and power.

The women in Harvey, Bird, De Rosa, Montgomery, and Rohrbach's study were intravenous drug users (IDUs) or partners of IDUs; most did not have high school degrees, and most were homeless. Thus, it might seem that these women would be fairly powerless. Interestingly, however, most of them reported being active in sexual decision making, taking steps to protect their own health in their sexual relationships. Similarly, Frank illustrated how power relations between dancers and strip club customers are more complex and ambiguous than one might expect. In many ways the male customers were in a powerful position, but they often did not perceive themselves as powerful.

Two thought-provoking articles address gender and power in the context of sexual consent and coercion. Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, and Anderson asked both women and men about being both the perpetrators and recipients of sexual coercion. Impett and Peplau analyzed sexual compliance: that is, consenting to unwanted sex. Both of these papers reveal gender differences in the expected direction, but both also show numerous exceptions to these expected gender differences. Struckman-Johnson et al. found that more men than women reported perpetrating sexual coercion, and more women than men reported being the recipients of sexual coercion; nevertheless, many women reported perpetrating coercion, and many men reported being coerced. Similarly, Impett and Peplau's literature review suggests that women are more likely than men to consent to unwanted sex; nevertheless, many men also report consenting to unwanted sex.

Furthermore, both papers highlight the complexity of these issues. Struckman-Johnson et al. asked their participants about the effects of coercive sex (defined as sex that occurred after they or their partners had already refused and because the perpetrator used sexual arousal, emotional manipulation, deception, alcohol, or physical force). Many reported harmful effects, but some reported neutral or even positive effects. Similarly, Impett and Peplau's literature review suggests that consenting to unwanted sex sometimes has positive consequences for both the initiator and the compliant partner. They raise challenging questions about distinguishing between consent and coercion.

TOPICS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ISSUE

Of course, not all topics relevant to gender and sexuality can be covered in any group of articles. In this special issue, no article focuses on gender and sexual dysfunctions, on gender and reproduction, on gender identity, or on the relationships among physiology, sexuality, and gender. No article focuses on gender and sexuality in non-Western cultures. There are no longitudinal studies, either over the life span or over the course of a relationship.

In addition, none of the articles focuses on lesbian or gay relationships. Perhaps potential authors viewed same-sex sexual relationships as less obviously related to gender because there are no gender differences in a same-sex sexual relationship; gender is, in effect, held constant between the partners, so that gender roles and gender-related power differences might not seem relevant. (2) Nevertheless, understanding how gender influences sexuality in same-sex relationships could be informative.

Finally, all the authors treat dichotomous gender classifications (i.e., girls and boys, women and men, females and males) as unproblematic. None challenge this classification system or suggest conceptualizing gender as having more than two categories or as being fluid, continuous, or multidimensional.

AN ACTIVE AREA OF RESEARCH

Clearly, gender and sexuality is an active, varied, and exciting area of research. As illustrated in this collection of articles, researchers are exploring gender and sexuality from numerous perspectives. Every paper answers some questions and simultaneously suggests more avenues for inquiry. We hope that readers will find this set of articles thought-provoking and that they will stimulate further exploration of gender and sexuality.

(1) The work of other authors, however, illustrates that it is too simplistic to regard sex as biological and gender as socially constructed. Even biological sex is socially constructed. For example, when an individual's biological sex does not fit neatly into the female-male dichotomy, medical experts often use surgery and hormonal injections to make it fit (Diamond, 1997; Fausto-Sterling, 2000).

(2) One could, however, argue that in same-sex relationships, it is sex rather than gender that is held constant. Two women or two men might not perform or understand gender in the same way.

REFERENCES

Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (2000). Women and gender: A feminist psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Diamond, M. (1997). Sexual identity and sexual orientation in children with traumatized or ambiguous genitalia. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 199-211.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Lips, H. (2001). Sex and gender: An introduction (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T.-M. C. (2003). The meaning of difference: American constructions of race, sex and gender, social class, and sexual orientation. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Address correspondence concerning this special issue to Charlene L. Muehlenhard, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-7556; e-mail: [e-mail].

Charlene L. Muehlenhard
Special Issue Editor
University of Kansas, Lawrence

Co-Editors
Zoe D. Peterson and Leslie Karwoski
University of Kansas, Lawrence

Tamara S. Bryan
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York

Rachel S. Lee
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York